Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Ved Ram Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 594 of 2025|WPS No.2225/2023|REVP No. 140/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Uttam Pandey
For the Respondents:Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate

The court ruled that parity in employment benefits requires possessing requisite qualifications at the time of appointment; mere appointment does not guarantee retrospective advantages if qualifications were not met initially.

Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Government Appointment Rules - Temporary appointment on compassionate grounds - Claim for retrospective benefits denied based on lack of requisite qualifications at the time of appointment - Legal principle of parity in treatment among similarly situated employees discussed. (Paras 1, 6, and 11)

(B) Administrative Law - Writ jurisdiction - Review jurisdiction - Powers of appellate court - Review petitions dismissed when original orders found to be justified and reasons cogently established. (Paras 7, 9, and 10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, appointed on compassionate grounds, claimed parity with two similarly appointed employees. His review petition against the denial of retrospective benefits based on technical qualifications was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge correctly dismissed the petition as the appellant did not possess the necessary qualifications when he was initially appointed. No illegality or irregularity was found in the findings.

Issues: The core issue was whether the appellant was entitled to the same benefits as other similar employees considering the qualifications at the time of their appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the denial of retrospective benefits was justified as the appellant lacked the requisite qualifications at the time of entry into service, whereas others had met those qualifications. The ruling emphasized that parity among employees can only be recognized when all conditions are satisfactorily met.

Result: The writ appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. arguments presented regarding the denial of benefits. (Para 1 , 9)
2. facts of compassionate appointments and qualifications. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 , 8)
3. observations on employee treatment and qualifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 11 , 13)
4. ratio decidendi confirming qualification as essential for benefit claims. (Para 12)
5. final dismissal of the writ appeal. (Para 14)

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

08.08.2025

Heard Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2225/2023 and the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in REVP No. 140/2025, whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and review petition.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to by his original designation as “petitioner”) was appointed on a temporary basis in the respondent department on compassionate ground after the death of his father. He was engaged as a Chaukidar on collector rate (Tribal Development Department, Bilaspur) and posted at Boys Government Industrial Training Institute, Korba. Copy of the appointment order dated 08.12.1994 was filed as Annexure P/1 in WPS No. 2225/2023 at page No. 10–10A. One Smt. Jamuna Bai, widow of Late Nanaki Dau Yadav, was also appointed on compassionate ground as a Waterwoman on Collector rate. Similarly, one Ram Gwal Yadav was appointed on compassionate ground as an Assistant Cook for 89 days on Collector rate with effect from 01.01.1993. The similarity in all three appointments is that they were made under Government Notification GAD Memo No. Kramank/C/3-4/94/3/1 dated 10.06.1994, and Memo of the Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bhopal No. Stha./3- 2/1343/94/20195 dated 20.06.1994. All appointments were temporary, on collector rate, and made on compassionate grounds. The date of joining and date of regularization of the above-mentioned three employees are as follows:

Name	Date of Joining	Date of Regularisation
Ved Ram Patel (Petitioner)	08.12.1994	19.08.1998 (Page 11–11A)
Smt. Jamuna Bai Yadav	01.07.1991	10.06.1994 (Page 12–12A)
Ram Gwal Yadav	01.01.1993	23.07.1998 (Page 13–13A)

That the educational/technical qualifications of these three employees are as under:

Ved Ram Patel (Petitioner):	Obtained a Temporary National Trade Certificate in Welder Trade from ITI Korba, under the State Board of Examination for the academic session 1992–1993 (Annexure R/1- 6/1, Page 7 of the return).
Smt. Jamuna Bai Yadav	Qualification not disclosed by the Government.
Ram Gwal Yadav	Qualification not disclosed in the return, but it is learned that he obtained an ITI certificate in Welder Trade in 1985–1986.

That the details of benefits extended upon regularization are as under:

Name	Date of Regularization Details of Benefits
Ved Ram Patel (Petitioner)	19.08.1998 Regularised as Workshop Assistant w.e.f. 19.08.1998 (the date of order), but not granted benefits retrospectively from the date of notification i.e. 10.06.1994.
Smt. Jamuna Bai Yadav	10.06.1994 Regularised as Peon w.e.f. 10.06.1994, order issued on 13.05.1998; granted

	arrears, pay grade, and seniority from 10.06.1994.
Ram Gwal Yadav	23.07.1998 Regularised as Workshop Assistant, order issued on 26.06.1999; granted salary arrears and benefits from 10.06.1994.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that although all three employees were regularized under the notification dated 10.06.1994 and were later promoted. Only the petitioner was denied the benefits of salary arrears and seniority, while the other two were granted these benefits. It is further evident from the record that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Arvind Kumar Verma, JVed Ram Patel – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWA No. 594 of 2025|WPS No.2225/2023|REVP No. 140/2025

The court ruled that parity in employment benefits requires possessing requisite qualifications at the time of appointment; mere appointment does not guarantee retrospective advantages if qualifications were not met initially.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Ved Ram Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 594 of 2025|WPS No.2225/2023|REVP No. 140/2025